Your writing is very eloquent but, obviously, you've never had a bone spur.

tbh, as much as a I think you put it very eloquently, the response will still be "but why does it matter".

It is interesting that Ken Ham apparently can't begin to face the possibility that he might not exist for eternity. I mean really, surely here is a man who believes in God because the idea of an end is too terrifying and inconceivable. On some level I wonder if he doesn't know that his feeling is irrelevant to the reality. How fitting then that he resides in a museum of deception and delusion.

I'm utterly unconvinced by your assertion that the public did not think his rape conviction devalued his endorsement. Why do you think that? Because you did? As soon as i understood the story (there's no description) my immediate reaction was, "well if an ear biting rapist ex-boxer endorses you...."

I'm not saying that the broadcaster definitely had heard people saying that, but i think it's naive to think that his rape conviction went unnoticed by everyone who heard about his endorsement - i noticed. I take the way people act very seriously and mike tyson has shown himself to be a dangerous and troubled individual so my ONLY reaction to the endorsement news is "why should i care what that person thinks, given his record?"

Furthermore what responsibility are you referring to that requires him to name the persons who suggested the question to him? I thought media people have the right to protect their sources? This isn't an investigation and we're not his jury, so why would he need to name his source?

I think you're dead wrong on this one, for example if he had said "Some people are saying this is mike tyson's big come back! What do you have to say to them?" I don't think you'd be demanding that he name his individual sources.

Now if mike tyson were on tv to give his opinion on who was going to win the next football/baseball season then i'd say his past wasn't relevant. But if he's going to offer his endorsement to what seems to be a political interest, then his character and therefore his past is the only relevant issue. Mike tyson had a good opportunity here to talk about how his life has turned around, and what he believes in now. He's a very eloquent man when he wants to be, and he could have knocked that question out of the park, made a viral hit, made the endorsement 10x stronger. But you know what he did instead? He acted like a thug and spat abuse at the guy, swearing and being childish and making his endorsement 10x weaker.

Am i going crazy here? Surely publicly presenting your approval to something requires us to place a value on your approval, and allows your character to be questioned? And i can only see good reason to protect the anonymity of the person who wanted the question asked (even if it was the interviewer!) judging by tyson's childish, aggressive reaction! I mean i liked mike on charlie sheen's roast too, but this isn't a comedy show and that question was fair. Mike could have knocked this one out of the park if he had thought about it.

Very eloquently said. Couldn't agree more with this gentleman.

Well, in that case, here is an MI5 whistleblower's very eloquent attempt to ruin your mood for the day. And here an artist makes secrecy visible, including rendition flights, spy satellites, the works -- very entertaining.

Interesting but not very eloquent.

Bloody hell that was pretty awesome. He's actually very eloquent. He certainly made me want to play the game.

I've offered up a cohesive explanation of what Eric is talking about. The entire point of this video is to mock Eric Hovind by implying that 6th grader beat him in a debate. Yet, the 6th grader had no idea what he was talking about and lost the debate by making an absolute claim. In the same way, I don't think many people have understood the argument here either and assume because of the reaction of the crowd that Eric lost. Perhaps he didn't state his case very eloquently, but he didn't lose, and of course we are missing the entirity of the actual debate that Eric had with the kids dad.

In any case, proving my personal revelation has nothing to do with the argument itself. It is an argument that proves the necessity of God by showing the impossibility of the contrary. In regards to proof, my position has always been, which is also the position of scripture, is that God works by personal revelation. You aren't going to know anything about God without that personal revelation. He does, however, give everyone enough information to seek Him out. Everyone has a conscience and knows they are morally accountable for their sins, and everyone can see in the creation evidence of a Creator. If you want to know what I am saying is true, you can sincerely ask God to come into your life and then He will reveal Himself to you. This is something you can do at any time..

You could pray something like this: Jesus, if you are everything the bible says you are, I will serve you. Please come into my life.

If you mean that He will reveal Himself.

She's very eloquent...

>> ^BicycleRepairMan:

>> ^shinyblurry:
lennox babbling

Religion and science are not in conflict because of how Galileo was treated ot because Huxley debated a bishop, they are in conflict, and will forever be in conflict because of the way they work:
Science is the systematic way of removing faith from the equation, and to systematically question and test every assumption to prevent us from fooling ourselves.
Religion is precisely the opposite: Its a systematic way of perserving faith in the face of doubt and uncertainty. Its a systematic way of avoiding the hard questions and keep fooling oneself.
Which is why its defenders often attack those who question and destroy previous assumptions about the world (Darwin or Galileo). The two examples Lennox gives are symptoms of the conflict, not the conflict itself.
As Jerry Coyne puts it in "Why evolution is true": "Not all religious people are creationists, but all creationists are religious" So when we ask ourselves why more than 40% of the US deny the factual existance of the fundamental process that created and drives all living things on earth, the answer isnt just ignorance or stupidity. It is organized ignorance, stupidity and dogma, or religion as some call it.


Very eloquent, i'd only recommend getting rid of the "hard questions, foolish" bit because it sounds insulting. Otherwise it's a really well constructed explanation that even a theologist would find hard to deny.

Very eloquent speech. I'll upvote this kind of rational dialogue on religion that actually takes the counter-points into account any day.

I don't disagree with most of what she's saying here. A lot of where we differ in opinion would be in terms of nuance and perhaps semantics (i.e. definitions of religion and anger). She crafted a very strong argument. I admire how she invoked King and Ghandi at the end--almost implying that these religious and spiritual leaders would somehow approve of how the anti-theist movement [I can't really call them atheists anymore--they've gone beyond just denying a god exists to demanding everyone else denies it too] is going about its movement (I don't believe either King or Ghandi would, though).

I don't have time to write a lengthy post about this video, so I'll simply say this: I feel the anger of the anti-theist movement is misplaced. Targeting "religion" makes about as much sense to me as targeting "government." "Governments" are responsible for the suffering of millions (if not billions) of people around the world. But we wouldn't think of tossing the idea of government out the window on that basis.

Governments can be improved and my position is that religions can be too. Reality checks can be built into religion: is your religion spreading peace and happiness in the world, empowering people and bringing them together, providing social and psychological support in tough times, and promoting equality and justice? No? Then you need to make changes.

My position has been and continues to be that religion is a tool that can be used for good or for evil. It is the responsibility of both religious and non-religious alike to keep the pressure on religion so that it minimizes the chances of it doing harm and maximizes the chances of it doing good. Picking specific instances (the Catholic church abuse scandal for instance) as focal points is a great example. Religions do change over time, and I appreciate the anti-theist movement for "keeping things real" to some extent and exerting this pressure on religion. Ultimately, though, anger is a double-edged sword and I suppose only time will tell if the anti-theist movement ends up falling on its own blade.

Wow... whether on purpose or not, that reference to Shiny's blind adherence to idiocy coupled with Clapton being god makes you my new hero.
>> ^SpaceGirlSpiff:

You're so smart, shiny... Ooh, wait! I can play too!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_Faith
lol... blind leading the blind... /rolls eyes
>> ^shinyblurry:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_blind_leading_the_blind
>> ^SpaceGirlSpiff:
One need not raise a glass of alcohol to toast one of the greatest minds of many generations.
For speaking so very eloquently and with undeniable reason and logic against the idiocy, bigotry, zealotry and flat out ignorance of people like shinyblurry...
For renewing my vigor to speak my mind when confronted with that same idiocy, bigotry, zealotry and flat out ignorance as much as I can...
Here's to you Hitchens. We need more of you, not less.

You're so smart, shiny... Ooh, wait! I can play too!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_Faith

lol... blind leading the blind... /rolls eyes

>> ^shinyblurry:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_blind_leading_the_blind
>> ^SpaceGirlSpiff:
One need not raise a glass of alcohol to toast one of the greatest minds of many generations.
For speaking so very eloquently and with undeniable reason and logic against the idiocy, bigotry, zealotry and flat out ignorance of people like shinyblurry...
For renewing my vigor to speak my mind when confronted with that same idiocy, bigotry, zealotry and flat out ignorance as much as I can...
Here's to you Hitchens. We need more of you, not less.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_blind_leading_the_blind

>> ^SpaceGirlSpiff:
One need not raise a glass of alcohol to toast one of the greatest minds of many generations.
For speaking so very eloquently and with undeniable reason and logic against the idiocy, bigotry, zealotry and flat out ignorance of people like shinyblurry...
For renewing my vigor to speak my mind when confronted with that same idiocy, bigotry, zealotry and flat out ignorance as much as I can...
Here's to you Hitchens. We need more of you, not less.

One need not raise a glass of alcohol to toast one of the greatest minds of many generations.

For speaking so very eloquently and with undeniable reason and logic against the idiocy, bigotry, zealotry and flat out ignorance of people like shinyblurry...

For renewing my vigor to speak my mind when confronted with that same idiocy, bigotry, zealotry and flat out ignorance as much as I can...

Here's to you Hitchens. We need more of you, not less.